Public health research, deception, and distrust.

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. HIV and Mental Health Services in the US South: A Meso Analysis.Community mental health journal · 2022
   Article
2. Minimizing sample bias due to stigmatized behaviours: the representativeness of participants in a cohort study of alcohol in pregnancy.BMC medical research methodology · 2022
   Article
3. Choice Hygiene for "Consumer Neuroscientists"? Ethical Considerations and Proposals for Future Endeavours.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2021
   Review
4. Deception in research is morally problematic … and so too is not using it morally: reply to open peer commentaries on "the use of deception in public health behavioral intervention trials: a case study of three online alcohol trials".The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2014
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Comment on
  The use of deception in public health behavioral intervention trials: a case study of three online alcohol trials.2013

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.

Indexed as